Bath, NY. Residents Gear Up To Fight Off Wal-Mart Supercenter

Sprawl-Busters received the following short report from citizens in Bath, New York who want to keep Wal-Mart out of their community: “One week ago Wal-Mart announced to the Town of Bath that it planned to build 150,000 s.f. Super Center. They submitted an environmental assessment form (EAF) and a site plan. They have not filed for a building permit. The store is proposed to be located along State Route 54, a two lane road, in the Town of Bath. The EAF states there will be an additional 880 cars per hour passing along this section of road once the store is operating. That’s over 21,000 cars in the 24 hours that Wal-Mart will be open every day.”

This store would be three times the size of a football field. “We are excited to have the opportunity to bring a Supercenter to Bath,” a “senior public affairs manager” for Wal-Mart told the Star-Gazette newspaper. “Currently, residents have to travel nearly 20 miles to shop at a Supercenter.” Wal-Mart claims that the proposed store will create 350 jobs, most of them full-time, and will generate a “significant amount” of local tax revenue for the town of Bath. “We know that Bath residents shop at existing (Wal-Mart) stores even though they are significantly farther away. We know from our research that it will be a pretty big draw and a pretty successful Supercenter.” The retailer said approval could take eight months to a year. The town’s Supervisor in Bath told the newspaper it was “satisfying” that Wal-Mart has enough confidence in the town to undertake a project there. “It is my hope that the Wal-Mart development will make Bath a shopping destination and will serve not only the Bath community but also draw shoppers from outside the immediate area,” the Supervisor said. A member of the town board already indicated his support for the project even before the site plan has even been reviewed. “I know that some people immediately have some negative thoughts,” Board member Robert Lattimer said. “But I have seen Wal-Mart developments be very positive things for small communities.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 30 | 0 comments | Permalink

Spooner, WI. Roadwork & Access Could Stymie Wal-Mart Plans

Is Wal-Mart willing to foot the bill for major roadwork to their front door? On February 28, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that residents in the tiny city of Spooner, Wisconsin were organizing to fight a Wal-Mart. “Bad news on the horizon,” the residents wrote. “The Mayor admits Wal-Mart has been presented as a concept, but still no final word. We don’t know what can be done to stop this 153,000 sq ft store. We are a small tourist town, very seasonal business. The owner of a local grocery store has concerns, and has set the stage for layoffs. Spooner is a town with 2,600 people. We have supercenters 20 miles north and south, we have two grocery stores, two hardware stores, Dollar Store, Pamida discount store, many downtown stores. The County has agreed to the sale of land for $901,000 in secret deal.” Now, 15 months later, residents in Spooner report that the issue may come down to money and roads. The city, the Wisconsin DOT, and Washburn county officials have sent Wal-Mart a “list of improvements” they want for highways and access to the proposed supercenter. The officials have told Wal-Mart these improvements are “required to be completed at Wal-Mart’s expense prior to the opening of the proposed Wal-Mart store.” A traffic impact analysis (TIA) completed in February 2007 and submitted by Wal-Mart traffic consultants, prompted the city, county and state officials to respond with their list of improvements. In response, the Chairman of Washburn County First, the citizen’s group that is fighting Wal-Mart, sent a letter to the editor to the Spooner Advocate newspaper, saying, “For the first time since the proposed Wal-Mart development was announced, local officials have taken a public stand on who will pay for all necessary road improvements to accommodate the Supercenter…From this point forward it will be important to hold these officials to this position. It seems unlikely Wal-Mart will agree to these terms without a fight, given their penchant for pinching every penny. One of the possibilities mentioned was an overpass…effectively closing access at that intersection. But wait a minute: a spokesperson from Wal-Mart’s previous engineering firm is on record stating that Wal-Mart would likely not want a store at that site without access to Hwy. 53…What does this mean? It means that the site is now, and will be in the future, largely unsuitable for large-scale retail development, which is one of the main reasons it was not considered as such prior to a sudden offer from Wal-Mart on the 35-acre parcel. Check the comprehensive land use plans that were in development prior to all this uproar, and you’ll see that this is the case. Nowhere in either earlier plan was there mention of big-box development and the kinds of retail businesses that typically follow. If this kind of development had been planned for that site all along, would Washburn County have built its highway shop there? So what’s the solution?

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 30 | 0 comments | Permalink

Edison, NJ. Mayor Loses Courageous Legal Battle With Wal-Mart

Jun Choi, the current Mayor of Edison, New Jersey, does not want a Wal-Mart supercenter in his township. But the agreements approved by township officials before he took office have tied his hands. Choi charged that the township violated its legal obligation when it granted Wal-Mart a building permit. But the developer sued the Mayor, saying that he unlawfully interfered with the process and should be held personally responsible for the developer’s monetary losses. When the developer’s lawsuit was filed, Choi called it “intimidation and scare tactics,” and reiterated his charge that the township Planning Board failed to comply with proper procedure in executing the developer’s agreement. “The legal basis for us not issuing the building permit is they did not properly execute the developer’s agreement back in 2005,” the Mayor told the Home News Tribune. He said the Planning Board needed approval from the Township Council to execute the document-—which it never received. According to the township’s municipal codebook, a developer’s agreement must be executed and delivered to the Township Council before on-site construction may begin. The township and the developer, Edison Route 27, entered into a developer’s agreement in December 2005. The Planning Board had granted site-plan approval a year earlier, in December 2004 for a 140,000 s.f. Wal-Mart. When he ran for office in 2005, Choi said that he opposed the Wal-Mart, blaming the incumbent Mayor at the time, George Spadoro, and the Planning Board for surreptitiously pushing the application through. “This was snuck through in the middle of the night,” Choi said during a debate in the summer of 2005. “George Spadoro’s appointments to the Planning Board did not do their jobs properly.” But thd developer said that Choi was attempting “to frustrate and thwart the project” and engaging in a “wrongful misuse of his powers.” The developer calculated that the delays were costing them $2,970 per day, or just over a million dollars a year.
The developer in its lawsuit asked the court to hold the Mayor personally responsible for those costs, and sought damages and attorney fees from Choi. This week, Judge James P. Hurley of the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County ruled against the Mayor, and ordered the city to give Wal-Mart a building permit within 20 days. “The township will comply with the judge’s order,” Mayor Jun Choi told the newspaper. “But we continue to oppose this project.” Edison Route 27 Associates has already paid the township $1 million for traffic improvements, and paid $96,000 to the township’s tree-replacement fund, a fund that generates money from developers that don’t replace trees on their sites.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Monday, April 30 | 0 comments | Permalink

Low Taxes Always – For Wal-Mart - Too Bad for the States

The Wall Street Journal reported today that the Rhode Island legislature has introduced a bill to shut down a popular corporate income tax shelter used by Wal-Mart. It is estimated that the tax shelter costs Rhode Island $7 million in revenue. That is money that Rhode Island’s taxpayers have to make up.

John Simley, Wal-Mart spokesperson, said the legislation would add costs to the companies that use them. Put another way, Mr. Simley is saying that if Rhode Island forces Wal-Mart to pay legal taxes the company has already agreed to as a cost of doing business within the state, it will cost the company money.

Wal-Mart should hope that shoppers don’t use the same logic when they are in the stores or they might consider that actually paying for the items rather than stealing them will increase their personal costs.

Posted by David Nassar, Executive Director on Friday, April 27 | 11 comments | Permalink

LiL’ Orphan Annie Was Never So Cruel

Posted by Alex Goldschmidt on Wednesday, April 25 | 10 comments | Permalink

Concord, CA. Council Expected To Formally Dump Wal-Mart Plan

In an update to a story we brought you on March 8, 2007, ABC News reports that Wal-Mart may crash and burn this evening in Concord, California, when the City Council makes a routine certification vote to reject the retailer’s final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The so-called Jones Ranch Project included a Wal-Mat superstore and other retailers. But last month, the City Council voted 3-2 to reject the EIR on the grounds that the report did not address transportation and circulation, parking, public safety, solid waste generation, storm water and urban decay. The Mayor of Concord, Mark Peterson, voted for Wal-Mart, but he was outnumbered by 3 councilors against the plan. Since their March vote, the city’s planning staff have prepared a resolution with findings of fact to support a rejection of the EIR, recommending the Council vote formally to deny the project. The huge layout included a Lowe’s home improvement store as well as the Wal-Mart, plus a fast food restaurant, all crammed onto 28 acres of land in an industrial area on the north side of town. The project has shattered any concord in Concord. Opponents have argued that crime will rise, as well as pollution and traffic, and smaller business will be displaced. A citizens group, No More on 4, has been fighting the project. The group said today that the developer, Winton Jones Development, wants to delay the final vote, hoping it can turn one Councilor’s vote around.

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Wednesday, April 25 | 0 comments | Permalink

Fairfield, CA. Wal-Mart Threatens To Turn Fair Field To Foul Field

On November 2, 2006, Sprawl-Busters reported that Wal-Mart lost a tie vote by the Planning Commissioners in Fairfield, California. The retailer wanted to transfer from their current location on Chadbourne Rd. to the vacant Mission Village Center in Fairfield. There are already 4 Wal-Mart discount stores within 15 miles of this site, so there is no market need for this project. One month later, the Fairfield City Council unanimously approved, on a 5-0 vote, a Wal-Mart Supercenter on 18 acres of a former shopping center. Residents opposed to this flip-flop, sent Sprawl-Busters the following update: “We need your help to save our city from more traffic and endless sprawl. In 2002, the Fairfield City Council designated Mission Village as “mixed-use” in the City’s General Plan. In August 2006, the Fairfield City Council unanimously voted to put restrictions on “big boxes”. In November 2006, the Fairfield Planning Commission rejected the big-box proposal. But on December 6, 2006, the Fairfield City Council voted to approve an approximate 200,00 s.f. Wal-Mart Supercenter on North Texas Street---a site formerly known as Mission Village. Not only did the Council members reverse the decision of its own Planning Commission, but overall, flip-flopped in their decision within four months. Now the City is trying to go back and correct all of the mistakes they made. To start, they are trying to reduce the parking requirements to accommodate new big-boxes coming to Fairfield. To accommodate a new big-box they will have to change the city’s zoning ordinances. This change in the zoning code will add: 1) Increased traffic. The Solano Transportation Authority (STA) has predicted a 400% increase in the county’s congestion over the next 25 years. Reduced parking will put tens of thousands of cars on Fairfield streets; spilling into the abutting neighborhood. 2) A proven magnet for crime. National estimates indicate that almost 1 million criminal/police incidents occurred at big-box stores in 2004 – or 2 criminal/police incidents per minute in 2004. 3) More traffic and sprawl. A “big box” graveyard. Not only will Wal-Mart close the existing Chadbourne Road store, but the adjacent K-Mart, Big Lots and nearby FoodMaxx, Raley’s and Safeway will all be in serious jeopardy. 4)The Downtown area will be threatened: A Fairfield Report clearly states that this “particularly vulnerable” part of Fairfield will be most impacted by the new “big-box” and other projects.”

Read the rest of this story ...

Posted by Al Norman on Tuesday, April 24 | 0 comments | Permalink

Woodland, WA. Wal-Mart Appeals Superstore Project Delay

On May 6, 2006, Sprawl-Busters printed a letter from a small merchant in Woodland, Washington, who was concerned about the damage that a proposed 163,000 s.f. Wal-Mart supercenter would do to her small town of 4,300 people. “If Wal-Mart comes to Woodland,” she wrote, “I predict many closures and adverse effects for the businesses that have loyally served and supported this town: two groceries, a pharmacy/variety store, a discount variety, two tire shops, an oil and lube shop, a fishing-supply store, a nursery, an office-supply store, numerous hair salons, a vision center, a fabric and craft store, etc. etc. I don’t want to see Woodland’s recently-renovated downtown and our recently-remodeled small shopping center lined with empty storefronts.” Almost one year later, Wal-Mart’s plans for Woodland are still not out of the woods. According to The Daily News, Wal-Mart is challenging a Hearing Examiner’s ruling that will delay the retailer’s plans for a store near the Dike Road exit. Hearing Examiner Irv Berteig ruled that Wal-Mart has to fix flooding problems around the Route 5 interchange. Wal-Mart has complained that the Examiner’s decision is too vague. “We’ll fix what and to what degree?” a Wal-Mart spokesman told the newspaper. “We were all scratching our heads on that one.” But a larger problem for Wal-Mart---the decision says the company can’t begin construction until a traffic study in Woodland is completed, which could take as long as a year and a half. Wal-Mart charges that its superstore is not related to the traffic study, and they should not be held hostage to an open-ended timeframe for the study. Wal-Mart apparently is not challenging Berteig’s contention that Wal-Mart has to do further work with the city regarding traffic problems at the underpass of Route 5. In response to the Hearing Examiner’s decision, Wal-Mart has filed a motion for the decision to be reconsidered, and filed an appeal in Cowlitz County Superior Court. The Examiner’s order was issued because of an appeal filed in July, 2006 by a citizen’s group called Woodlanders Against the Wal. The group had challenged the city’s “determination of mitigated non-significance” for the project. Local residents have not only had to fight Wal-Mart, but their own town officials who rolled over when the giant corporation first appeared in town. The grassroots group had to hire a land use attorney, John Karpinksi, to represent them against the project. Woodlanders Against the Wal indicated this week that the group will oppose Wal-Mart’s attempts to overturn Berteig’s rulings.